Recent posts by issendorf on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hillary Clinton is paying people to "correct" people's opinions online

No, he’s definitely an idiot. He can barely string two sentences together.

Either he got exceedingly lucky every step of the way or he deftly capitalized on the anger felt by so many voters. I tend to think it’s more of the latter and not a matter of the buffoon being incredibly fortunate, but maybe that’s just me.

It was a terrible roster to begin with and Trump’s presence shut them down.

And yet miles better than the horrendous duo that is Clinton and Sanders. Remarkably, the GOP picked basically one of the two candidates (Carson) who have almost no realistic change of winning the Presidency. The mind-blowing incompetence of so many on the right never ceases to amaze me.

That he won the nomination is the ultimate proof of exactly what those who call themselves Republicans stand for as a majority.

Hopefully this is the death of the Republican Party since it’s no longer the party of liberty and free markets (I mean it really hasn’t been since the mid-90s, but this just cements it). If not, the Libertarians are going to see a significant uptick in their membership.

Possibly, but she still had to do more than Trump.

More precisely, she had to do Bill Clinton.

I’ll see myself out.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hillary Clinton is paying people to "correct" people's opinions online

I felt Bernie made some huge mistakes in his campaign.
He should have used rhetoric that was a lot less “sophisticated”.
Words like revolution, oligarchy, etc. probably aren’t all that “comfortable” even for many (most?) liberals. The younger ones are sophisticated enough and have a lot more at stake.

I don’t think you can fault Bernie that much. The deck was stacked completely against him – the DNC was never going to allow him to win, no matter what the voters did. Considering what he had to deal with, he performed admirably (although I think he would have benefited from hitting Hillary harder on her trustworthiness than he did).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hillary Clinton is paying people to "correct" people's opinions online

The difference between them is that Hillary is actually competent and smart, while Donald Trump is an idiot born into wealth.

Trump is awful, but he’s not an idiot. What he did this election cycle is nothing short of brilliant. He got elected to a major political party without spending hardly any money. He didn’t have pollsters. He didn’t have scripted speeches on teleprompters. Hell, he got social conservatives to vote for someone who is A) not conservative B) not religious and C) has had three marriages. Pretty much everyone on the right regarded Trump as an idiot that would fall apart and, well… here we are.

I think what Trump did this cycle will fundamentally change how many – perhaps most – politicians prepare for and execute their campaigns for POTUS.

Hillary Clinton had to work past barriers to get into the position she’s in now while Trump blustered his way through.

Hillary got to where she is because she married Bill Clinton. Her history of being professionally incompetent and morally corrupt hindered her far more than her being a woman.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Man arrested for thought crime in UK

the US’ right to free speech blanket-allows everything, then individual state laws limit it, by disallowing things like libel or reckless endangerment through speech. That differs on a state by state basis, but it’s up to the states to exclude every little thing – and they risk a challenge that their law is unconstitutional every time they restrict a bit of it.

This is just completely and horrifically incorrect.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

Originally posted by BombCog:

Shopping at the Mall of America is not at the same level as systemic violence against a group of people by militant police. People are being actively killed in police custody. Fuck your Christmas shopping, and fuck you in particular for trivializing human life in such a crass way.

No one said the two were on the same level you fucking nitwit.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

You do it with the goal in mind to be as disruptive as possible without being violent.

BLM could use some work on this aspect, but they are awfully good at being as disruptive as possible.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

I was trying to illustrate that each of us are triggered by different words and ideas along a spectrum. These words might be considered by you at polar opposites, but is that to say that everyone should share your assessment of which words, ideas and actions are offensive (and which are not)?

I hate Bernie Sanders with the passion of a thousand suns. If I go to Emory College, you can be damn sure that the administration wouldn’t do a single thing to stop people from hanging up Bernie Sanders signs in their windows. If you’re going to college, you go with the tacit understanding that you’re going to be exposed to people who have different political views than yourself.

If different political views are traumatic, here’s an idea: Don’t go to college.

Many of these activists claim (and rightly so, I believe) that they are exposed to more risk of incarceration and inappropriate interactions with law enforcement than others, and are demanding real policy change to examine and correct the issue.

Data says otherwise. Unarmed blacks are shot by police concurrent with the level of crime they commit.

Much like “hands up, don’t shot,” BLM likes to base their grievances off of lies.

What is your sympathy worth? Is your disrupted vacation sufficient reason to turn against BLM’s mission of social justice?

I would imagine my sympathy has very, very, very little value. I’m very okay with not being valued by an organization that riots in the streets, actively seeks to prevent people from speaking, and promotes violence against the police.

This illustrates white privilege perfectly. The privileged class feels that their mere sympathy is valuable enough to be pandered to… and that withholding that sympathy is enough “damage” to discredit the demonstration of outrage.

This isn’t white privilege. This is an instance of douchebags shutting down a major interstate and preventing flights from taking off. If you’re going to get people who are generally in favor of criminal justice reform (as I am), this isn’t the way to win converts over which, I would think, would be sort of an important goal for a protest movement.

The “low blow” question goes like this: What demonstration of black outrage WOULD be appropriate to earn your sympathy?

How about a protest that doesn’t prevent people from seeing their loved ones on Thanksgiving or getting their Christmas shopping done at the Mall of America? Let’s start there.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

There has been a student on campus that acts confrontational to black activist students.

Seeing as black activists thought it was a cool idea to shut down an interstate where I live and to cause flights to be delayed at Thanksgiving, my sympathy towards them is extremely limited. Not the greatest appeal to emotion.

Would you mock those people that feel like writing something like “niggers go back to africa” is unacceptable? Or is it only SOME people that are offended by SOME things that are “snowflakes?”

“Trump 2016” and “Nigger” aren’t even remotely close to each other. You’re.. well… not being wise when even throwing those two items together.

If you had read what I wrote earlier, you would have seen that I already addressed this: If the trigger warning folks merely wanted the advisory note that this material discusses racism, for instance, then that’s one thing. What actually happens is that noble advisory function is abused to silence dissenting views.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

This is why the right mocks trigger warning advocates. Yes, someone on campus supporting Trump makes one snowflake feel afraid at their school. The horror!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

Although I have to admit that, having read more of their posts, it’s weird to see Issen arguing on the side of regulatory bodies.

Gotta remain unpredictable.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

Trigger warnings obviously don’t prevent a speaker from saying anything they want. They simply preface the presentation with a warning.

Because the trigger warning folks are actively working to suppress speech they don’t like on campuses across the country. The MPAA isn’t halting the production of a single film (as far as I know). That’s the difference.

If the trigger warning folks merely wanted the advisory note that this material discusses racism, for instance, then that’s one thing. What actually happens is that noble advisory function is abused to silence dissenting views.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

It’s not a free, open market. The MPAA is a market influence that the government has no business meddling with. It’s corrupt, subjective, and philosophically flawed.

But it isn’t censorship, which was my point.

The justification that it allows parents to protect their children is ridiculous. The rating doesn’t prevent anything… it’s simply a maturity rating, though ticket sellers are supposed to enforce R-rating sales.

I was turned away from my local theater when I was 16 from being able to see an R-rated film. Similarly, retailers pretty regularly won’t sell R-movies/M-rated games to those who are clearly younger than 17 (and may card if it’s close). Certainly it isn’t widespread, but the idea that the ratings don’t help prevent kids from getting at graphic content is simply not true.

Again, nothing you’ve said constitutes censorship because, again, the MPAA doesn’t prevent the creation of any film. Warning labels aren’t censorship.

This means that when a movie’s script feels PG-13, studio executives know that it may deserve a larger production and marketing budget. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle; PG-13 makes money, so PG-13 gets investment… PG-13 gets investment, so PG-13 makes money.

You have it backwards. PG-13 movies aren’t financially successful because they have a PG-13 rating. They’re successful because they appeal to a massively broad audience. The Hunger Games wasn’t a smash hit because the MPAA graced it with a PG-13 rating. It was a smash hit because people at pretty much any age could find enjoyment in it, and the rating, again, informs consumers what they can expect to see before heading into the theater.

Need more proof? Look at ESRB. The game industry exploded in creativity relatively overnight. Do you sincerely believe that the ESRB contributed to that growth?

I don’t think it’s had any impact, either positive or negative. Some of the biggest selling games are M-rated – it’s not deterring Rockstar from making GTA. It’s not preventing Project Red from making the best game of 2015, Witcher 3. It’s not preventing Bethesda from making Fallout 4, etc. What the ESRB is doing is making it significantly more difficult for, say, my 7 year-old nephew to pick up GTA at Best Buy which is a good thing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

Why not let the public decide what’s best for them instead of the government?

The public does decide, and what’s been the case historically is the public has no interest in seeing X rated movies. If they want to, they have the ability to access those films.

Denying a movie distribution actually IS censorship.

It’s not being denied distribution. The theaters are just choosing not to pick it up. It happens all the time with, as mentioned, art films, but also films that are political in nature.

If you write an op-ed calling for the U.S. government to kill every Jew (extreme example, but I hope it gets the point across), and no newspaper chooses to publish it, are you being censored? Or are the newspapers merely predicting the market’s reaction (whether it will have a positive/negative impact on readership) by rejecting the content en masse?

Can you recall the last time the MPAA rating influenced your entertainment decision?

For me, yeah. I don’t watch a ton of movies, but I really like horrors. If it’s rated R, there’s a decent chance I’ll give it a shot if I like the looks of a plot whereas I’ll almost always avoid a PG-13 horror since it’s likely to be pretty watered down.

As for the rating scale as a whole, I’m not married to the idea that we need G, PG, PG-13, R, and X. There does, however, need to be a disclosure of what the film contains. If there’s frontal nudity, swearing, graphic violence, etc. that needs to be made clear. I’d be pretty much ok if the rating system was just a group of letters (e.g., a film could be rated NV because there’s nudity and graphic violence).

Should the government be evaluating content at all? How does that align with our principles regarding freedom of expression?

It serves the public good to help prevent those who don’t want to consume graphic content accidentally consuming it. This has long been established in First Amendment cases that this is a constitutional check on speech, and it’s one of the limits that I’m generally okay with.

Trust me. I’m just as shocked as you are that I’m the one defending the MPAA and the rating system, but I think they and the ESRB generally do a good job of warning consumers who are uneasy or shouldn’t be consuming the content.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

I object to your strict definition of “censorship.” If a movie gets an X rating, it is not distributed and is therefore unavailable for citizens to consume. MPAA engages in a practice that effectively creates censorship.

But it still is distributed. It’s available online, it’s available at rental houses, it’s available on streaming sites, etc. There are tens of thousands of art films that never get picked up for showing at a cinema. They aren’t being censored – they’re just films that a wide audience has no interest in viewing.

When the MPAA exerts its rating, it is stigmatizing the product. There’s a significant distinction.

Hardly. It lets consumers know what to expect from the film. Sure, a film that garners an R will have some families declaring that is must be ‘smut,’ but so would simply having a warning that there’s nudity or graphic violence. It’s just a shorthand method to let consumers have a general idea of how graphic a particular film is.

Unfortunately ratings have a severe impact on the content of the games, movies, and music that are ultimately made available to us as consumers in this “free market.” Movies are edited and re-edited until they meet the criteria for an R-rating, or a PG13-rating, or whatever rating they are aiming for.

That is, ultimately, the decision of the filmmaker to change the craft to maximize revenue. In other words, the filmmaker is then prioritizing $$$$ over his ideal vision for the film. Now, you can bemoan that we live in a world where money dictates the direction of art into what’s desired by a mass audience, but that has nothing to do the MPAA. Those forces would still exist even in a world with no ratings.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

I would critique your example, Issendorf, by pointing out that disrupting a speech falls well short of the kind of damage enacted against people of color and minorities throughout history. Everything that has ever happened did so in the past, so it’s obviously foolish to claim that whatever happened in the past is done and therefore doesn’t warrant a response.

Right, but I never stated they were equal. I’m saying both are bad, and just because the safe spacers aren’t, say, spraying anti-feminists with fire hoses doesn’t make their current behavior acceptable.

One could claim that the trigger warning of movie ratings can lead to censorship. If my movie explores controversial subjects might be rated X and get no distribution, thereby preventing that movie’s access to an audience. Censorship is not prohibiting a person for having a controversial idea… it only prevents them from sharing it with others.

One can claim whatever they want. In this instance, one would be wildly incorrect. It’s only censorship if the movie is banned from being made or from being available for citizens to consume. You don’t, however, have a right to have said film screened.

It’s the same with a book. A bookstore not selling a book isn’t censorship – it just means that they don’t believe there’s a market for that book.

I think you can see that the MPAA’s rating system could easily be interpreted as a form of functional censorship.

Sure, it can be interpreted as censorship, but that doesn’t mean it is censorship.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Characteristics of Trump's Strategy

The big unknown is what happens to Sanders’ candidacy as primaries move to those western states that favor him. California’s primary is still three months away and there’s nearly 500 delegates at stake. New York has a few less than 300. For comparison, Iowa has 54. Things MIGHT get very good for Sanders.

The combination of super delegates and every Dem primary allocating delegates on a proportional basis make it a mathematical impossibility for Sanders to beat Clinton. He could beat her 60-40 in every state (which he won’t) and it still won’t matter.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

What about the opposing examples of the gay student that is silenced for his or her views? Or the activist that is harassed for speaking against power? Aren’t the history books filled with people that were silenced for expressing their controversial views by the agencies in power? Isn’t that also a form of censorship?

Sure that’s censorship, but gay rights speakers aren’t having the fire alarm pulled during their speeches. The idea that people did bad things in the past somehow justifies bad behavior today is absurd.

Look at the movie rating system. Why do we rate movies G or PG or R? This is a trigger warning. Is that censorship?

Not even a little bit.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

I think, in theory, trigger warnings are a noble attempt to help people who have dealt with significant mental trauma from having to relive it on a daily basis. That noble attempt, alas, has been corrupted by the blizzard of special snowflakes on college campuses to become absurd. When we apparently need triggers for Greek mythology it stops being a tool to protect the mentally vulnerable.

The issue I have with triggers is mostly in the realms of censorship on college campuses to censor any and all speech that isn’t approved of by some sect of the students. You don’t think all rape victims have a right to be believed? You hate women and should be censored! You don’t think affirmative action is great? You’re a racist that must be censored! You think marriage isn’t part of the purview of the federal government? You hate the LGBT community and should be censored! And so on.

The ironic thing with the safe spacers is that many of the speakers who come to campuses to speak these so-called ‘controversial’ opinions (because God forbid you hear a unique perspective when you’re in college) need security protection just to be able to state their views. In essence, these speakers need a safe space to literally protect themselves from the safe spacers.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Characteristics of Trump's Strategy

Sorry – I had meant to include the original link! Here it is.

There’s also a graphic that shows monthly earned media by candidate. Both of your hypotheses seem to be correct – Trump’s media lead has swelled and Bernie has closed the earned media gap in recent months.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bernie Sanders fatal flaw.

I’ll stick with the opinions of Presidential historians, thanks.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bernie Sanders fatal flaw.

So before you criticise Bombcog too harshly, find out what metric he’s using to rate the presidents with.

That would imply he’s one of the best 11 Presidents we’ve ever had. I don’t care what metric you use, there’s no argument that he’s better than Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, or LBJ. I also think Polk and Monroe are easily better but you can at least have the argument there. That’s 14th even if you’re super generous – he’s much closer to Reagan in the overall hierarchy of greatest presidents. A range of the high teens to mid 20s is likely where historians will slot him.

If it’s just Hillary Vs Trump, the better choice might well be Hillary.

The better choice is definitely Hillary.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bernie Sanders fatal flaw.

Put your citations where your bluster is, issendorf. All I hear is parroting of Fox News.

I don’t watch Fox News. I guess they aren’t incorrect 100% of the time if they’re stating the same things that I am. As for the bluster, I’m not sure someone who says that Obama is definitely in the top quarter of U.S. Presidents is someone who is really in a position to be critiquing that.


Hillary in general I think will be bad for the States. She’ll concentrate on business-as-usual, and nothing’ll really change under her leadership. The problemns the country has, will continue to fester, basically unaddressed. It’ll leave an even bigger mess for the next president to pick up the pieces from.

None of the candidates are good – we’ll be festering pretty much regardless (unless Romney saves us at a brokered convention).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bernie Sanders fatal flaw.

Not only is that occupation essentially volunteering for extreme mortality risk, they occurred because of changes in military policy that were out of the President’s hands.

When you’re Commander in Chief, there are no military policies that are “out of your hands.”

including with antagonistic states like China and Iraq

Saying that relations with China have improved is a joke. As for Iraq, it’s practically not even a state anymore thanks in large part to the President’s feckless approach to foreign policy. And that’s before even getting to the disasters that are Libya and Syria, the continued spread of ISIS, his dreadful approach to Russia and Iran, etc.

low unemployment

Mainly due to labor participation rate being at levels not seen since the late 70s when we were residing under the economic brilliance of Jimmy Carter. Remember: Bernie Sanders consistently says the real unemployment rate is well over 10%. Either he or the President is wrong.

drastically lowered debt growth

That’s because the Republican Congress reduced spending. Obama has consistently lamented reduced spending levels.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Characteristics of Trump's Strategy

And in our latest example of how the media is enabling Trump, here’s a comparison of paid media vs. free media via the NY Times.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Share Your Plans For the Future!

Vacating the Upper Midwest, going to school for either my MBA or JD and learning tennis are the top priorities. If I can squeeze in the time to read some biographies, even better.